Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
chatmcp

MCP Server Flomo

by chatmcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

mcp-server-flomo MCP サーバー

Flomoにメモを書きます。

これは、Flomo にメモを書き込むのに役立つ TypeScript ベースの MCP サーバーです。

プレビュー

特徴

ツール

  • write_note - Flomo にテキストメモを書き込む

    • コンテンツを必須パラメータとして受け取ります

Related MCP server: Browser-use MCP Server

発達

依存関係をインストールします:

npm install

サーバーを構築します。

npm run build

自動リビルドを使用した開発の場合:

npm run watch

インストール

Claude Desktop で使用するには、サーバー設定を追加します。

MacOS の場合: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json Windows の場合: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mcp-server-flomo": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@chatmcp/mcp-server-flomo"],
      "env": {
        "FLOMO_API_URL": "https://flomoapp.com/iwh/xxx/xxx/"
      }
    }
  }
}

Flomo_API_URL はこちら

デバッグ

MCPサーバーはstdio経由で通信するため、デバッグが困難になる場合があります。パッケージスクリプトとして提供されているMCP Inspectorの使用をお勧めします。

npm run inspector

インスペクターは、ブラウザでデバッグ ツールにアクセスするための URL を提供します。

Available Tools

1 tool
write_noteC

Write note to flomo

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesText content of the note with markdown format

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'write' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that creates content.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how to properly use this mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'content' clearly documented as 'Text content of the note with markdown format'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('write') and target resource ('note to flomo'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, with no sibling tools mentioned, there's no opportunity to distinguish from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without offering usage instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • First observedwrite_note
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool 'write_note' has a single, clear purpose that cannot be confused with any other tool in this set.

Naming Consistency5/5

The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern ('write_note'), and with only one tool, there is no inconsistency to evaluate. The pattern is clear and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for a note-taking server, as it lacks basic operations like reading, updating, deleting, or searching notes. This minimal set severely limits functionality and will likely cause agent failures in typical workflows.

Completeness1/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for a note-taking domain. It only provides write capability, missing essential operations such as get_note, list_notes, update_note, delete_note, and search_notes, which are critical for full lifecycle management.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers